Alert! 'Lord of the Rings' epics return to big screens

Would it be appropriate for congregations to -- quickly -- organize trips to see these films?

If you have followed news from Hollywood, you know that the 2023 strike by the Writers Guild of America has left the cupboard rather bare in terms of high-profile movies headed to theaters this year. Add that reality to the epic disaster that unfolded at the box office on Memorial Day weekend.

Ah, but what if — a few days from now — one of the biggest (in every sense of that word) fantasy-and-action trilogies of all time returned to a multiplex near you?

I am referring to this headline from The Hollywood Reporter: “‘The Lord of the Rings’ Trilogy Returning to Theaters, Remastered and Extended.” Here is the overture:

Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy is coming back again — but it’s a bit different this time.

Warner Bros. and Fathom Events are teaming to rerelease the Oscar-winning fantasy blockbusters this summer. The versions screened will be Jackson’s extended editions (so you might want get the jumbo tub of popcorn), and also the versions that the filmmaker remastered in 2020 for a 4K Ultra HD rerelease.

The films will screen across three days at Fathom Events participating chains, like AMC, Cinemark and Regal. The screenings will start with 2001’s The Fellowship of the Ring on June 8, then 2002’s The Two Towers on June 9, followed by 2003’s The Return of the King on June 10.

Meanwhile, Forbes noted that “The Lord of the Rings original trilogy films combined for a massive $2.93 billion in global box office in their previous releases. These remastered and extended cuts have never been seen in theaters before, however.”

The key words there, for John Ronald Reuel Tolkien nerds (tmatt raises his hand) are “remastered” and “extended.” I have checked and this One Movie Festival To Rule Them All will be held in several theaters here in the hills of East Tennessee.

This leads me to two questions linked to my post earlier this week that ran with this headline: “Does God want movie theaters to survive? A meditation on the 2024 Memorial Day box-office disaster and the future of movies in American mass culture.”

Question No. 1: I realize that this is very, very short notice — but would it be appropriate for congregations to quickly organize efforts to rally some of the faithful to support this event, especially young adults who never had a chance to experience LOTR on big screens?

Question No. 2: Are this films worthy of support by traditional religious flocks?

I am very familiar with this much-discussed Tolkien quotation:

There are, of course, believers who wish that this bookish conservative Catholic scribe had been a bit more explicit, in terms of the Christian symbolism in the trilogy. I’m not diving into that here.

I also realize that some will ask questions about the worthiness of Jackson trilogy. Are they too violent? Would Sam have abandoned Frodo on the stairs into Mordor? Would Legolas have “shield boarded” down a flight of stone stairs during the battle at Helm’s Deep? I will stress that, in my opinion, the extended editions are far superior to the original theater versions.

What think ye, folks? I am not calling this “evangelism.” I am not even calling this “young adult ministry.” I am simply saying that this is an opportunity to support some fine films, to enjoy some fellowship and to discuss the worldview woven into these classic Tolkien books.

To open these discussion, here are three old “On Religion” columns in which I addressed some of these issues — including quotations from on-the-record talks with Jackson and screenwriter Philippa Boyens.

Yes, I put some key quotes in bold text.

---

August 1, 2001: God, man, hobbits & Tolkien

In the beginning was Eru, the One, who also was called Iluvatar.

"And he made first the ... Holy Ones, who were the offspring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made. And he spoke to them, propounding to them themes of music; and they sang before him, and he was glad."

This "Great Music" went out "into the Void, and it was not void." But something went wrong. The greatest archangel, Melkor ("He who arises in Might"), became proud and rebelled. Great was his fall into evil and he became Morgoth ("Dark Enemy of the World"). His chief servant was Sauron, who created rings of power to rule the world and "One Ring to rule them all."

The rest is a long story. Like all myths, those who want to understand "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy must start at the beginning – with the author's creation story in "The Silmarillion." J.R.R. Tolkien knew what he was doing in his tale of elves, dwarves, hobbits and men.

"The Lord of the Rings," he wrote to a friend in 1953, just before book one was published, is "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision." Yet Tolkien also told Father Robert Murray it was his desire to stay theologically orthodox that led him to avoid being too specific, despite the biblical parallels in the creation story.

"That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion,' to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and into the symbolism," wrote Tolkien.

The result is a stunningly ambitious myth, yet one that lacks the clear symbolism of an allegory or parable. Believers who share Tolkien's faith can follow the roots into Catholic imagery and tradition. Clearly the evil in Middle Earth is good that has been twisted and perverted. The humble are tempted, yet triumph through sacrificial love. One age passes away, before a glimpse of a world to come. There is much more.

Yet millions have read an epic tale of non-doctrinal good vs. undefined evil – period. It all depends on one's point of view, especially when it comes time for other artists to re-create the myth with the help of a camera lens. When "The Lord of the Rings" begins reaching theaters in December, will the myth remain centered in its creator's faith?

"Tolkien could not create from nothing. Only God can do that. But he was able to sub-create an entire world using his imagination, his beliefs and his experiences in the world around him," said British writer Joseph Pearce, author of "Tolkien: Man and Myth."

"That is certainly what he set out to do with 'The Lord of the Rings.' ... But if you tear the myth away from Tolkien's worldview, then the story isn't going to make sense any more. It may, literally, become incoherent – a neo-pagan fantasy."

This is especially true since Tolkien's work includes images and ideas drawn from legions of myths, legends and traditions. His goal was to create a myth that combined elements of others, Pearce said, "with the whole story illumined from within by a Trinitarian, Christian light."

Now, new artists will be "sub-creators" of movie versions of "The Lord of the Rings" that will cut and mold 500,000 words of prose into six hours of multiplex magic. Millions will see these movies and most will use this lens to interpret the books – if they read or re-read them. The official website (www.lordoftherings.net) offers no sign of Tolkien's faith or worldview.

There is no telling what may end up on the screen, Pearce said.

"The great strength of Tolkien's work may, in the end, be its weakness. He has created truth in a form that is truly sublime – myth. Yet that is also a form of art that can easily be twisted. He was writing a myth, but he wanted it to be a True Myth, a myth rooted in Truth with a capital T. Take away that truth and you change the myth."

---

December 11, 2002: Tolkien, creation & sin

NEW YORK — Screenwriter Philippa Boyens gets a tired look in her eyes when she recalls the surgery required to turn "The Lord of the Rings" into a movie, even a sprawling trilogy of three-hour movies.

"It's so hard," she said. "It's hard, it's hard, oh God, it's hard."

One agonizing cut in the screenplay removed a glimpse of the myth behind J.R.R. Tolkien's 500,000-word epic. In this lost scene, the traitor Saruman is torturing the noble Gandalf. "What," asks the evil wizard, "is the greatest power?" Gandalf replies, "Life."

"You fool," says Saruman. "Life can be destroyed. Did I teach you nothing?"

Trying again, Gandalf says, "Creation."

"Yes," answers Saruman, "the power to create life."

Millions of readers and now moviegoers have seen "The Lord of the Rings" as an epic tale of good versus evil.

Many have tried to pin labels on each side. The dark lord Sauron and his minions represent Nazi Germany and the armies of Middle Earth are England and its allies. Wait, said scribes in the 1960s. The forces of evil were industrialists who wanted to enslave Tolkien's peaceful, tree-hugging elves and Hobbits. The dark lord's "One Ring to rule them all" was the atomic bomb, or nuclear power, or something else nasty and modern.

The reality is more complex than that, said Boyens, after a press screening of "The Two Towers." Director Peter Jackson's second "Lord of the Rings" reaches theaters on Dec. 18.

"This is not a story about good versus evil," she said. "It's about that goodness and that evilness that is in all of us."

Anyone who studies Tolkien, she said, quickly learns that the Oxford don rejected allegorical interpretations of his work.

Nevertheless, Tolkien was a devout Catholic and his goal was to create a true myth that offered the modern world another chance to understand the timeless roots of sin. Thus, even his darkest characters have mixed motives or have been shaped by past choices between good and evil. Even his virtuous heroes wrestle with temptations to do evil or to do good for the wrong reasons.

The dark lord Sauron, noted Boyens, "was your basic fallen angel. If you go back even further within this mythology, you have a world that begins with Iluvatar, who is the One, who is basically God."

Iluvatar created the world through music, noted Boyens. But one angel, Melkor, was "jealous of the power of creation" and struck a note of discord, shattering the harmony. Yet Iluvatar did not destroy his creation. Instead, he gave his creatures the freedom to make choices between darkness and light, between evil and mercy.

It is hard to put this level of complexity on a movie screen. Nevertheless, Boyens and Jackson stressed that the "Lord of the Rings" team tried to leave the foundations of Tolkien's myth intact. The ultimate war between good and evil is inside the human heart.

"We didn't make it as a spiritual film, but here is what we did do," said Jackson, who is a co-writer and co-producer as well as the director of the project. "Tolkien was a very religious man. But we made a decision a long time ago that we would never knowingly put any of our own baggage into these films. ...

"What we tried to do was honor the things that were important to Tolkien, but without really emphasizing one thing over another. We didn't want to make it a religious film. But he was very religious and some of the messages and some of the themes are based on his beliefs."

The goal is to retain the timeless quality of the books, said Jackson.

Most of the filming for this three-movie project was done before the events of Sept. 11, 2001, he noted. The director had no way to know his movies would reach theaters during such tense times. Once again, many want to match headlines with events in Tolkien's masterwork.

"You sort of get the impression – which can be depressing – that Tolkien's themes really resonate today and that they're probably going to resonate in 50 years and then in 100 years," said Jackson. "I don't think humans are capable of actually pulling themselves out of these basic ruts."

---

January 19, 2005: The visions of Tolkien and Jackson

NEW YORK — If J.R.R. Tolkien didn't know the perfect word to describe something he often created his own word or even a completely new language.

The climax of "The Lord of the Rings," he decided, was a "eucatastrophe" – which calls to mind words such as Eucharist and catastrophe. The scholar of ancient languages defined this as a moment of piercing joy, an unexpected happy ending offering a taste of God's Easter triumph over sin and death. Tolkien thought this sacramental element was at the heart of his new myth.

Thus, Greg Wright of HollywoodJesus.com asked Peter Jackson how members of his team handled this in their movie trilogy. When they wrote the scene in which the one ring of power is destroyed, did they discuss Tolkien's theory of "eucatastrophe"?

"No," replied Jackson. "What's it mean?"

It wasn't a normal Hollywood question, but Wright wasn't involved in normal press-tour interviews. In 2002 and 2003, Jackson and other artists behind the films sat down for roundtable discussions with religion-news specialists and critics from religious media. The questions ranged from the nature of evil to computer-generated monsters, from salvation to elvish poetry.

Now the extended edition of "The Return of the King" is done and the trilogy is complete, at least until some future extended-extended anniversary set. For Wright and other Tolkien experts, it's time to ask how these movies have changed how future generations will perceive these classic books.

Jackson and his co-writers, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, knew that Tolkien's traditional Catholic faith had deeply influenced "The Lord of the Rings." Their goal was to keep the "spirit of Tolkien" intact, while producing films for modern audiences. They said they had vowed not to introduce new elements into the tale that would clash with Tolkien's vision.

"You would have to say that these are extremely gifted people and that they showed incredible dedication and integrity," said Wright. "But the questions remain: What is the spirit of Tolkien? How well do Jackson, Walsh and Boyens understand the spirit of Tolkien?"

It helps to know that Tolkien never expected these books to reach a mass audience. He thought they would appeal to his friends and scholars – who would quickly recognize his Catholic images and themes. In his book "Tolkien in Perspective," Wright argues that the author eventually realized that millions of readers were missing the point.

Now, millions and millions of people are seeing what Tolkien called his "fundamentally religious and Catholic work" through the lens of artists who knew the importance of his beliefs, but did not share them. Wright discusses these issues at length in his new book, "Peter Jackson in Perspective."

Take, for example, Tolkien's conviction that all true stories must somehow be rooted in the reality of evil, sin and the "fallenness" of humanity.

Jackson was blunt: "I don't know whether evil exists. You see stuff happening around the world and you believe it probably does. ... I think that evil exists within people. I don't know whether it exists as a force outside of humanity."

Walsh and Boyens emphasized that the books are about faith, hope, charity and some kind of life after death. What about sin?

"You don't fall if you have faith," said Boyens, and true faith is about "holding true to yourself" and "fellowship with your fellow man." The "Lord of the Rings," she said, is about the "enduring power of goodness, that we feel it in ourselves when we perceive it in others in small acts every day. ... That gives you reason to hope that it has significance for all of us as a race, as mankind, that we're evolving and getting better rather than becoming less, diminishing ourselves through hatred and cruelty. We need to believe that."

These noble sentiments do not match the beliefs that inspired Tolkien, said Wright. In these interviews, similar misunderstandings emerged on Tolkien's beliefs about truth, providence, salvation, death, heaven and hell. However, commentaries and documentaries included the final "Rings" DVD set do address some of these issues from Tolkien's perspective – including that mysterious concept of "eucatastrophe."

"I think that you can find Tolkien's vision in these movies if you already know where to look," said Wright. "But if you don't understand Tolkien's vision on your own, you may or may not get it."